Superman Unchained #3

[superfangirl1]

Comments

[darkblade]

Can we please stop postulating moral dilemmas for superheroes (Superman in particular but it applies to pretty much every hero in a shared universe to some extent) that will never be resolved because any meaningful look into the issue would force the world they live to stop resembling our own in any way shape or form?

All it does is highlight the genre's flaws only to go back to glossing over them until the next time someone wants to make the point. If you don't have the capacity to follow through on an idea it's better to forget it than half-ass it.

[silverhammerman]

Motto.

It's stuff like this that's made me swiftly fall out of love with Scott Snyder's writing. It seems like he just can't muster the earnestness that's essential to playing the superhero concept straight.

[mrstatham]

See, I think he's doing fine on Batman - it'd be better if editorial didn't feel the need to push his story ideas on everyone and insist on crossovers, frankly - and I think it's a very basic Batman run that maybe doesn't quite live up to the hype, but then it's not as disappointing in it's attempts to be 'epic' or whatever, like Morrison's tenure eventually was.

But this is just.. It's more of the thing I hated in the Injustice comic. To a lesser degree, certainly, but there is a reason - several, even - that you just don't bring up issues like this in superhero comics at the big two. One - you'd need to have the spine to follow through on the idea of a superhero actually SOLVING the problem and not just going 'the world is better off if I let them handle it because they shouldn't rely on me too much' or Two - you need to have the confidence and maturity as a writer to establish a character's need for attention and praise as a proper character trait and not necessarily make that a bad thing, but show that it's there.

And there are a handful of writers who can pull that off. Bendis, at his best, can make something like Scarlet. Rucka has plenty of greyer characters who are still heroic enough, and so on. Snyder can't do it. He does very black and white ideas, and whilst I think it works on American Vampire and Batman, I just can't stand ideas like this, like a - the writer seems to be under the impression they're the first one to posit this idea, and b - the writer just can't pull it off.

[rainspirit]

I like the argument he's making. It's not necessarily right, but it's not played out either.

Be interesting to see Superman's counterpoint, if he has one.

[superfangirl1]

I'm sure Superman will have one in a latter issue. But after Lane insults Superman.

One of General Lane's man inform him of a drone terrorist attack going on in Tokyo. So Superman and Wraith go on to handle the situation.

[joetuss]

In other news tmnt out of the shadows will be available for download next week

[doodleboy]

It's an idea that has been shown before.

Doctor Doom once said something similar during a Superman and Spider-man crossover. That in choosing not to exert his power over people Superman condemns people to dying of war and poverty. Paraphrasing Superman replies to Doctor Doom that he always knew he could do that, but in doing so he'd have to seize power, become a class of men like Hitler. I like that idea that Superman always has those types of thoughts in the back of his mind.

And to be quite honest, I do like playing around with moral dilemmas like this. During an Adventure of Superman comic a normal person told Superman that it's hard to live up to his standards. To which Superman replies that he fights and struggles to live up to those standards every day.

Being Superman should be difficult. You have the power to help anyone to save anyone, but you can't save everyone. And you can easily over-reach, and abuse your power. I do like a Superman who struggles to figure out the right thing to do. A Superman who doesn't always succeed, but still continues the fight because that's who he is.

That and I'd rather have a writer swing for the fences with risky ideas then play it safe. An interesting failure is better then something somewhat competent but boring and forgettable.

On a side tangent it kind of reminds me of the Hyperion versus Midnighter mini-series a while back (where it's probably easier to talk about a more real-world topic more directly). Both Hyperion and Midnighter try to help the Darfur genocide, before the people around them tell them that it's way more complicated then that. It was a pretty well-done series.

[matrix_dragon]

... Why does DC hate Superman so much?

[freezer]

That's where this trope falls flat for me, because rarely do we see the hero getting griped at give the obvious counter:

"Then what, General? Say I took down your warlord or dictator? What then? Do I take over? Handpick one? Oversee the picking of one? Or go in, kill the bad guy, and cross my fingers that the guy that comes after isn't an even bigger menace? And what would the rest of the world think of that? You don't trust me now? Just think what would happen to my rep if I went around playing international judge, jury and executioner?

I'm not here to fulfill your war fantasies, General."

[freezer]

They don't hate Superman; just fun.

[big_daddy_d]

Jeebus Superman is not a god and getting involved in international affairs is a hell of a lot more delicate than some people make it sound. Get tired of them treating him as if he has to do EVERYTHING! Settle your own damn issues you ass.

Now to more positive matters. Second page, first and second panel. OWNED!! I laughed so hard. I've never seen anyone just punt Superman, not even Doomsday or Darkseid!

[shadur]

... We've already GOT a 'verse where Superman does exactly this. We've had several, in fact, and its most current incarnation is called "Injustice: Gods Among Us".

Seriously. Stop asking Superman to solve geopolitical problems and especially stop accusing him of murder for refusing to go on a global unilateral interventionist spree.


But since the writer seems to be pretending he's making an actual argument, let me just write a potential response for Supes here.

"You want me to start actively dedicating myself to making a better world regardless of who may or may not want me to intervene? Fine. Let me just start by incarcerating a few hundred bank CEOs that together decided to crash the global economy just to line their own pockets. After that I'll put the entire 1% into a single jail and lift it to the edge of breathable atmosphere until they agree to an increase in the minimum wage, reasonable protections for workers and a social justice system. Then I'll pick up the entire board of directors for BP and drop them off by the Gulf Coast and make them pay for the clean-up of the Deepwater spill. And after that I'll probably have time free in the afternoon to sweep Afghanistan and Iraq and punch every Coalition soldier who's committing civil rights abuses in the face and coming back here to do the same with every corrupt police officer in the country before dinner."

"What? Why are you looking at me like that, General?"

[shadur]

Not to mention the other counter, asking why he should restrict himself to fighting corrupt governments in third world countries but leave America alone in that regard...

[bizarrohulk]

I'm assuming you mean Nighthawk. Hyperion vs Midnighter would be a really weird crossover.

[applemagpie]

Also completely feel that these kind of moral political issues should stay out of superhero comics. The mainstream superhero genre is very fantasy-based, so bringing up real world international political issues doesn't make the genre seem more mature and realistic- it just highlights how fantastical and childish it is. The point of superhero comics is that it's supposed to be fantastical and fun. Because international politics aren't as simple as 'good guy takes out bad guy and problem is solved', like it is in superhero comics. Superman goes into Sudan and takes out the dictator and it becomes a non-divided and stable country, instantly capable of peaceful self-government? On what f*cking planet? And what about issues of sovereignty? Also the majority of global suffering and conflict are caused by things like deep set economic systems and racial divisions, not 'evil dictators'. I know General Lane is supposed to be an ass, but the fact that this kind of moral conflict is brought up at all doesn't make the comic look more intelligent or mature at all /end rant

[sadoeuphemist]

Ok so if the US army has a giant flaming superdude who is bigger and stronger than Superman, why haven't they sent him in to take down that Sudanese dictator etc etc etc?

[applemagpie]

He's not 'cool' like Batman is?

[sadoeuphemist]

Oh dude, Snyder on Batman so far has done a conspiracy that's so secret that Batman never even believed it existed, that controls all of Gotham, ruled by a dude who might be Batman's long lost brother; the Joker returning bigger than ever threatening to destroy the whole bat-family and now he knows all of Batman's secrets; and Batman's origin story only now it's like twelve issues long.

I feel like if there's a poster child for 'attempts to be epic but is utterly disappointing', it's Synder's Batman run.

[nate_abril96]

Maybe it's just me, but when I was reading this I imagined in Superman's head he was thinking: "Oh, this argument AGAIN!" And felt like it wasn't worth his time to respond to General Lane. I mean look at his face in that panel. That is the expression of a man who does not care.

[espanolbot]

I've enjoyed his run, personally.

Though the fact that the recent James Junior arc of Gail Simone's Batgirl didn't crib so much from his Dark Mirror storyline, right up to James attacking his mother, getting stabbed in the eye and facing off against his family on a bridge in the rain...

[espanolbot]

Because Lane thinks that as an independant operator he isn't beholden to governmental destrictions like Superman is, and if HE were Superman he'd be using the power in that way, meaning that he's judging Superman by the same warped standards as Bill did in the second Kill Bill film (ie Clark Kent is how Superman sees humanity, as clumsy, oafish and weak, and that the persona is intended to mock his adopted race)?

[mr_cyn1cal]

This entire line of reasoning is completely and utterly laughable - it can't be taken seriously in the context of this story, for the following three reasons:

1) "General, I really don't think I should have to explain the concepts of blowback or unintended consequences to a United States Army General...but it's pretty clear I do."
2) "You're claiming the world is more safe now than in 1938? Did you just forget the Cold War? The proliferation of nuclear weapons? Terrorism? I'm not even getting into the supervillains or alien invasions here. No, I'm sorry, but on a purely geopolitical level the world is LESS SAFE than it ever was, meaning your little black-ops military operation has been wholly INCOMPETENT from Day One."
3) "Yes, I care about the public - I believe power such as mine requires a check and balance - again, not a concept I thought I would ever have to explain to an American."

But good dear (insert name of preferred deity/magic invisible spaceman here) this is goddamn stupid on every conceivable level. Everyone involved in this comic should resign in shame.

[sadoeuphemist]

So why doesn't he just have Supersuperman ... become an independent operator?

[espanolbot]

See, this is less a comment on Superman, as it is a comment on General Lane. General Lane here is talking more about what he himself would do if he had access to Superman's power, and the assumption that because Superman has so much power and doesn't use it how Lane would, Superman is somehow less of a hero for it.

Lane is a guy who should know very well the amount of restrictions that would come to him over what someone in his position can and can't do in the military, so he feels that because Superman has no restrictions he must be a god-like sociopath who deliberately choses to not do the things Lane would do if he were Superman.

This is the same backwards logic that is shown by a lot of people who don't understand why Superman does why he does, be they some versions of Lex Luthor or even out of the DCU with the observations the titular Bill made about him in Kill Bill volume two.

Arguing that Superman is a mass murderer because he saves people one at a time instead of taking over the world and ruling it like Sauron is something only someone with an fundemental lack of understanding of what Superman is would say. Same as people who say that Batman should kill his rogues gallery in order to save the lives of their potential victims.

It's more a lack of moral fibre in those making the comments than any fault of the superheroes themselves, as those same people would probably be first in line to complain if Superman or Batman DID start acting like fascists by imposing their own rules upon the world.

[espanolbot]

As I say below, people who make arguements like this and the "Batman should just kill his rogues gallery" one generally don't understand the characters in the first place, and would also be in the first in line to complain if they DID do things like that.